Striving for a lower file size is inherently a good thing, but as disk space is becoming cheaper and cheaper and it's not as important anymore. Judging from th

Striving for a lower file size is inherently a good thing, but as disk space is becoming cheaper and cheaper and it's not as important anymore. Judging from the comparison gallery at http://code.google.com/speed/webp/gallery.html http://code.google.com/speed/webp/gallery.html, it's not very impressing. The result is much more blocky and there is significant loss in detail in detail-concentrated areas. Case in point: the first image of a landscape has two major noticeable artifacts: the shadow of the mountain (mid-right) reveals the blocky compression of WebP. Second, the compression algorithm tends to smooth out a lot of detail. Observe how the vegetation gets mushed out. The clouds as well (mostly on the top left). Great for video, not so much for images (from the gallery above anyway). I would like to see a better comparison with WebP vs JPEG but compressed to about the same file size and with a RAW source (to remove any compression bias).